Conservative Speaker Prevented From Addressing DePaul University Students By Activists As Campus Security Stands By

We have previously discussed the erosion of free speech on college and university campuses as students and faculty are punished for expressing views deemed offensive to any group. In the meantime, we have also seen protests by Black Lives Matter and other groups that silence other students with little response from university administrators. The videotape below captures this problem vividly. Conservative Milo Yiannopolous is often a lightning rod for such protests. However, it is not enough to protest outside. Students increasingly struck down events to prevent opposing views from being heard. In the case, two students shutdown the event as university security (paid by the event organizers) stand by and do nothing. It is a shocking scene for a university as student prevent a speaker from being heard because they disagree with what he has to say.

Student and church minister Edward Ward and a female colleague blew whistles and yelled to prevent Yiannopolous from speaking. Ward insisted that he was not trying to prevent free speech but rather “shutting down hate speech.” Of course, Ward decides what is hate speech, which seems to be most anything that he disagrees with. He explained

“But when it’s coming from a point of ignorance, when you make these blatant statements about feminists, when you make blatant statements about the LGBTQ community, when you make statements about black people – then it becomes a problem, because when you use this kind of hatred people like us end up dead. . . . You get Charleston. These are what you get as a result of his type of speech and rhetoric.”

Ward simply declares himself as the person who would decided what views would be allowed to be heard: “You have a bunch of white people who wanna actually say a bunch of racist shit and that’s not okay.”

The best way to deal with right wing retards like Milo is to let them speak. The more a right wing backwards type spouts off, the stupider they appear and consequently the less credible. Their followers become fewer and fewer and eventually we a left with the likes of the gumshoe and a few others on this and other blogs. Nothing discredits someone more than allowing them to bring hockey into the equation, or simply writing about stuff of which they have absolutely no understanding. Trying to shut them up only makes their asinine positions more credible in that they are defended now under the basic freedoms that each side seems to hold as their’s uniquely. Right or left, an idiot is an idiot is an idiot.

In fact, he’s a smart debater and would demolish most leftists, that’s why they have to shout him down and stop the presentations.
When people actually listen to him, they find his arguments compelling.
Your ad hominem is no different than the DePaul protesters.

KCF, Mitch has posted some great videos. The butt hurt Canadian has not watched them. He is still trying to recover from his man crush, STUPID, pretty boy, French Canadian PM being exposed as an entitled bully who abuses women on the floor of Parliament. You can certainly disagree w/ Milo. But to call him stupid shows the accuser to be just that. Milo is highly intelligent and eloquent.

Whether or not there is a potential fraud depends on the function of the security officers. If they were there only to intervene if violence broke out, then it does not appear that they violated that obligation. If they were there to ensure that the planned use of the facility went forward, then they failed to provide the service paid for. Some facilities require that an event planner pay for such services only to ensure that some authority is present to deter and respond to acts of violence. As to DePaul’s receipt of public money or use of public infrastructure, those things do not mean that the First Amendment limits its authority over its private property anymore than one’s use of the public roads means one can’t limit speech in one’s living room. It is, however, more evidence that we are losing any concept of what a university should be and failing to convey the dangers inherent in failing to protect unpopular speech to those who will be running the country for future generations.

Paul, it depends on what their job was, and who their duties ran to. Many event contracts require the event planner to pay for additional security required because of an event, but do not create any security duties towards the event planners. The venue considers them extra costs incurred by the venue as a result of the event which will contractually be born by the planner. The venue determines what, if anything, the security personnel should do. In that situation, any breach of contract issue turns on what the venue actually agreed to provide to the planners, and whether they lived up to that agreement.

One has to correct the historical record since it was the Weimar republic that refused to stop the FreiKorps from murdering their opponents. The government acquiesced at the very least in the murder of Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht who were the leaders of the Spartakusbund. The Nazis were the army sponsored terrorist group that was the governmental arms of repression. The left simply had to arm to defend itself from mass murder on the part of the rightwing and the police and army.

Universities are centers of indoctrination, not learning. The residential model of university education needs revision because it is not focused enough and is no longer economically efficient. Taxpayer resources are routinely misallocated. Administrators and other functionaries walk away with the largest slice of the pie. Massive infrastructure projects having noting to do with education of the workforce of the Future are routinely proposed and approved, further screwing the taxpayer. First Amendment rights of free association and the right to be heard are routinely denied certain groups. Why do We the People put up with this s**t?

A president of Rice University (where I have been teaching) scrapped commencement speeches. His justification: “speakers who do not engage in discussions with students are not educators but are propagandists for their points of view”. I supported his action which was discussed by an all-faculty meeting and was confirmed overwhelmingly.
With regards to First Amendment rights I am perhaps confused. However, it seems to me that the Bill of Rights regulates relationships between “we the people” and our governments. Ergo there are no First Amendment Speaking Rights at private Universities.

Two writers have pointed out that the DePaul University receives taxpayers moneys. So what? The Boeing Company receives far more taxpayers money than DePaul University. Does that mean that every person present on Boeing property has unfettered First Amendment Speaking Rights? Say reviling gay persons working at Boeing? Or making sexist remarks directed at women? If you hold “yes” please let us know. That view might generate a lively discussion.